18專業團體之聯合聲明

【18專業團體對於港大校委會否決委任陳文敏教授成為港大副校長一事之聯合聲明】

Joint Statement by the 18 Professional Groups in relation to the Council of the University of Hong Kong’s rejection of the appointment of Professor Johannes Chan as the Pro-Vice-Chancellor 
(Please scroll down for English)

對於9月29日港大校委會以8票贊成、12票反對，離奇地否決物色委員會的唯一推薦，拒絕委任陳文敏教授成為港大副校長，我們深表憤怒，亦對此決定予以譴責。與此同時，我們對港大校委會還沒有就其決定作出具體解釋感到遺憾。

但更令我們擔憂的是，據校委會本科生代表馮敬恩所述，校委會內一眾鼓吹否決任命的校委在會議中大放厥詞， 搬出一大堆莫須有式的原因作拒絕的理據。一時以Google Scholar 搜尋陳教授次數極少（要知道其實法律系學者或法律系學生均有獨特搜尋軟件，極少以Google Scholar作為搜尋器）或沒有博士學位，甚至無聊至曾否問候盧寵茂也成為副校長的條件之一。

陳教授在港大服務30載，並曾擔任港大法律學院院長12年，更於2003年獲前終審庭首席法官李國能委任成為香港唯一一位名譽資深大律師，以表揚他的教學成就。可見一眾否決任命的校委所引用的種種「原因」，實在難以自圓其說。加上過去多月，繼政權的喉舌報章不停地對陳文敏作出無理的個人攻擊後，港大校委會不斷拖延決議委任副校長一事，甚至不惜用上「等埋首副」這種無稽之談。這一切不禁讓人感到一種來自北京的外力想插手於任命陳教授為副校長一事中，令我們對香港能否維持學術自由感到悲觀。

在此必須一提，我們現時知道一眾反對任命的校委們的種種推搪之詞，實有賴馮敬恩同學不惜以身犯險，冒著被港大校委會紀律處分的後果，將真相道出。就此，我們對馮同學的道德勇氣及承擔致以最崇高的敬意。

可惜，我們留意到坊間有不少對馮同學的批評。就此，我們必須指出，根據港大校委會的校委守則及指引第5.3段，校委須要堅守7個公務原則，包括

(1) 校委的任何決定均必須以公眾利益為依歸；
(2)校委的職務不應受外來的組織影響；
(3) 當校委作出公職委任時，校委只以該人選的個人能力、資歷作為唯一考慮；
(4)校委的工作須向公眾問責；
(5)校委必須開誠佈公，亦應該對其決定給予原因，除非更大的公眾利益並不允許；
(6)校委必須匯報任何利益衝突及
(7)校委必須展現出他們的領導才能以推廣及支持以上的原則。

我們認為馮同學的行為，絕對是為了彰顯以上7項公務原則，尤其是確保原則(1) 、(3)、(4)及(5) 。

再者，其實在普通法中，一早有案例指出，法庭在考慮是否違反誠信時，必會同時考慮公眾利益。除非洩露機密文件會危害公眾利益，否則法庭不會保護該些機密文件 [Commonwealth v Fairfax (1980) 147 CLR 39 及R v Ponting [1985] Crim. L. R. 318]。

學術自由是香港的核心價值，我們必定會繼續追究一眾反對任命的校委對大學自主的粗暴干預。我們正在研究進一步行動以繼續跟進港大校委會事件。當有所決定，我們必會向外公佈詳情。

精算思政 進步會師
園境願景 思政築覺
藝界起動 思言財雋
前線科技人員 良心理政
保險起動 IT呼聲
杏林覺醒 護士政改關注組
規言劃政 法政匯思
進步教師同盟 放射良心
社工復興運動 量心思政

2015年10月2日

On 29 September 2015, the Council of the University of Hong Kong (the “Council”) rejected (by 8 votes in favour and 12 votes against) the Selection Committee’s sole recommendation to appoint Professor Johannes Chan as the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. We hereby express our anger and condemnation in respect of this baffling decision. At the same time, we regret that the Council has still not given a specific explanation in connection with its decision.

But what is concerning is that, according to Mr. Billy Fung Jing-eh, student representative of the Council, members of the Council who advocated the rejection of Professor Chan’s appointment spoke nonsensically at the Council meeting by citing baseless reasons. At one point they even cited reasons such as the lack of search results for Professor Chan on Google Scholar (but one would know that law scholars or law students use specific search databases and rarely use Google Scholar as a search engine), or that Professor Chan does not have a PhD degree. Even absurd reasons such as whether Professor Chan has sent his regards to Professor Lo Chung Mau was cited as a condition for becoming the Pro-Vice-Chancellor.

Professor Chan has served the University of Hong Kong for 30 years. He was the Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong for 12 years. Professor Chan was also appointed by Andrew Li, the former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal in 2003, as the only Honorary Senior Counsel in Hong Kong in recognition of his achievements in education. It can be seen that the various “reasons” quoted by the members of the Council who rejected the appointment of Professor Chan are in fact unjustified. In addition, in the past few months, following the unceasing and baseless personal attacks by newspapers that are mouthpieces of those in power towards Professor Chan, the Council continued to delay its resolution to appoint the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and even used ridiculous reasons such as “waiting for the appointment of the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor”. All these incidents inevitably cause us to sense that an external force in the form of Beijing is intervening with the appointment of Professor Chan as the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. We have therefore become pessimistic as to whether academic freedom can be maintained in Hong Kong.

We must also mention that it was Mr. Fung who, despite the risk of being subject to disciplinary action by the Council, disclosed what took place in the Council meeting. It was him who uncovered the various excuses made by those Council members against the appointment. In this regard, we greatly appreciate Mr. Fung's moral courage and sense of responsibility.

Regrettably, we observe that there were numerous public criticisms directed at Mr. Fung. Concerning this matter, we must point out that according to Paragraph 5.3 of The University of Hong Kong Guide and Code of Practice for Members of the Council, Council members shall abide by Seven Principles of Public Life, including:

(1) Council members should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest; 
(2) Council members should not place themselves under any obligation to outside organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties; 
(3) In making public appointments, Council members should make choices on merit; 
(4) Council members are accountable for their actions to the public; 
(5) Council members should be as open as possible about all decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands; 
(6) Council members have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest; and 
(7) Council members should promote and support these principles by leadership and example. 

We consider that Mr. Fung had acted in manifestation of the above Seven Principles of Public Life, in particular in upholding Principles No. (1), (3), (4) and (5).

Furthermore, in this context it is well-established at common law that when the Court determines whether there is a breach of confidence, public interest should be taken into account. Unless the secret documents disclosed endangers public interest, the Court will not protect to such secret documents (Commonwealth v Fairfax (1980) 147 CLR 39; R v Ponting [1985] Crim. L. R. 318).

Academic freedom is one of Hong Kong’s core values. We will continue to seek accountability from those Council members who improperly interfered with the independence of the University. We are considering further actions in following-up on this incident involving the Council, and will provide the public with more details once such proposed actions have been finalised.

Act Voice
Action Accountants 
At-grade
ArchiVision
Artists Action
Financier Conscience 
Frontline Tech Workers 
Hong Kong Psychologists Concern 
Insurance ARISE 
IT Voice
Médecins Inspirés 
Nurses Political Reform Concern Group 
Planners' Voice 
Progressive Lawyers Group 
Progressive Teachers' Alliance 
Radiation Therapist and Radiographer Conscience
Reclaiming Social Work Movement 
Surveyor Conscience

2 October 2015

精算思政 Act Voice，Action Accountants 進步會師，At-grade 園境 • 願景，思政築覺 ArchiVision，藝界起動 Artists Action，前線科技人員，良心理政 HK Psychologists Concern，保險起動 Insurance ARISE，IT Voice，杏林覺醒 Medecins Inspires，護士政改關注組，Progressive Lawyers Group 法政匯思，進步教師同盟 Progressive Teachers' Alliance，放射良心，社工復興運動 Reclaiming Social Work Movement，量心思政 Surveyor Conscience